Moleses, the Voter Guider's nearly blind mole wizard mascot, squinting through thick glasses

Unofficial! Not a government website, and not your ballot. We're just the Voter Guider people. What that means

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

2026 General Election — Montebello, CA

California

California's November 3 general election as it appears on Montebello ballots: city council and treasurer, State Senate District 30, Assembly District 54, U.S. House District 38, and for some addresses Montebello Unified Trustee Area 2 and Water Replenishment District Division 4. Both cities also vote on: Los Angeles Community College District trustees, Sheriff and four Superior Court judgeships, two county charter amendments, Governor and the other statewide offices, 14 statewide propositions and 20 judicial retention questions. Contest order, headings, ballot designations and measure wording are copied from Los Angeles County's Interactive Sample Ballot data for Montebello addresses. A few edge precincts vote on contests that aren't included (City of Los Angeles Measure SC, El Rancho Unified Measure ED). California has no U.S. Senate race in 2026. Party preferences are from the Secretary of State's certified list (Aug 27, 2026).

Not in Montebello? Monterey Park's ballot

Official election website ↗

Styled after Los Angeles County's sample ballot so it looks familiar. This page is not a ballot.

This is your guide. Mark your picks right on the ballot; they save as you go.

Your picks save automatically
0 decided · 63 to go0%
Jump to a contest

Your districts

Pick your districts to hide races you won't see. Until then, every district's race is shown.

Not sure? Look up your districts ↗
Moleses, the Voter Guider's nearly blind mole wizard mascot, squinting through thick glasses

Not a ballot. Don't mail this.

Your practice copy from the Voter Guider, an unofficial site. Moleses can’t count it. Copy your picks onto the real ballot from your county.

California

2026 General Election — Montebello, CA

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Contests, order and wording are copied from Los Angeles County's Interactive Sample Ballot (source ). Page and column breaks on your real ballot will differ. Blue boxes are our extras, not ballot text.

Contests

STATE MEASURE 3
STATE MEASURE 3

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND HEALTH CARE BY EXTENDING EXISTING TAX ON HIGH INCOMES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education. Fiscal Impact: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031. Supporters: California Teachers Association; CA School Nurses Organization; California State PTA; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

High stakesOfficial estimate: $5–15 billion a year · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

“Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.

A NO vote means

An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.

Fiscal impact: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.

Tax rates with and without Prop 3

Tax rate on each extra dollar of taxable income (California personal income tax)
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%$0k$250k$500k$750k$1MTaxable income12.3% if approved9.3% if rejected

Single filer: income fromNow through 2030After 2030 if approvedAfter 2030 if rejected
$0k1%1%1%
$11k2%2%2%
$26k4%4%4%
$41k6%6%6%
$58k8%8%8%
$73k9.3%9.3%9.3%
$371k10.3%10.3%9.3%
$446k11.3%11.3%9.3%
$743k12.3%12.3%9.3%
  • “Proposition 3 makes the higher income tax rates established by Proposition 30 permanent instead of letting them expire in 2031.”
  • “In a weak year, the proposition might bring in around $5 billion in revenue to the state. In a strong year, the proposition might bring in $15 billion in revenue to the state.”
  • “Roughly 40 percent of the funding would go to schools and community colleges.”

Rates and quotes from Legislative Analyst's Office, Proposition 3 analysis (Figure 1) (retrieved 2026-10-27).

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“Prop 3 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 40
STATE MEASURE 40

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

IMPOSES ONE-TIME TAX ON CERTAIN TAXPAYERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit. Fiscal Impact: Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires. Supporters: US Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West Opponents: California Primary Care Association; California School Boards Association; California Taxpayers Association

High stakesOfficial estimate: Tens of billions over several years · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

“Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

A NO vote means

The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

Fiscal impact: Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires.

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“CA billionaire tax explained: Propositions 40, 41 and 42” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 39
STATE MEASURE 39

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification. Fiscal Impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements. Supporters: The Transparency Foundation; Latino American Political Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; CA Women's Leadership Assn Opponents: ACLU California Action; Common Cause; League of Women Voters of California

High stakesOfficial estimate: Tens to low hundreds of millions a year · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

“between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote.

A NO vote means

A voter’s identity would continue to be established with the voter’s signature.

Fiscal impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.

Explainer · CalMatters · 1 min“Prop 39 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 5
STATE MEASURE 5

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

CHANGES RECALL ELECTION PROCESS FOR STATEWIDE OFFICERS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment. Fiscal Impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled. Supporters: None submitted Opponents: None submitted.

High stakesOfficial estimate: Millions of dollars, only if there is a recall · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

“savings or costs of millions of dollars” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment.

Put on the ballot by the Legislature

A YES vote means

Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy. Instead, vacancies typically would be filled through special elections or appointments, depending on the office and timing.

A NO vote means

Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.

Fiscal impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“Prop 5 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
COUNTY MEASURE A
COUNTY MEASURE A

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT REITERATING GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATION OBLIGATIONS AND ESTABLISHING IMPARTIAL BINDING ARBITRATION FOR CERTIFIED PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE DISPUTES Shall the measure amending the Los Angeles County Charter to prohibit strikes by district attorney investigators, medical examiners, and lifeguards; their supervisors; and nonadministrative civilian employees working in the Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, and the Department of Medical Examiner, reiterate existing legal obligations for good faith negotiations, and establish an impartial binding arbitration process for resolving labor disputes with certified public safety employee organizations representing County employees including firefighters, sheriffs, and the abovementioned employees, as specified in the charter amendment ordinance, be adopted? Supporters: LA County Firefighters Local #1014; Association of LA Deputy Sheriffs; LA/OC Building Trades Council Opponents: None submitted.

Medium stakesNo dollar figure in the official summary · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Local vote: fewer voters, so yours counts for more

Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Would amend the County Charter to prohibit strikes by district attorney investigators, medical examiners, lifeguards, their supervisors, and non-administrative civilian employees of the Fire, Sheriff's and Medical Examiner departments; restate existing good-faith negotiation obligations; and set up impartial binding arbitration for labor disputes with certified public safety employee organizations. Majority vote.

From the county's official voter information

By Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel Measure A (Measure) is a proposed amendment to the Charter of the County of Los Angeles (County) placed on the ballot by ordinance and resolution of the County Board of Supervisors. The Measure would amend the County Charter to establish a binding arbitration process for resolving disputes between the County and labor organizations certified by the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission as representing County employees in bargaining units specified in the Measure (collectively, the Parties). County employees represented by these bargaining units include firefighters, deputy sheriffs, sworn law enforcement supervisors and managers, lifeguards, and civilian employees working for the County Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, and Department of the Medical Examiner. If approved by a majority of voters voting on the Measure, this Measure would: - Add Section 47.8 to the County Charter. - Reiterate the Parties' existing legal obligations to negotiate in good faith on matters related to wages, hours, and other working conditions. - Prohibit strikes by district attorney investigators, medical examiners and lifeguards, and reiterate the existing prohibition on strikes by deputy sheriffs and firefighters. - Require the following procedures if disputes or controversies related to wages, hours, and other working conditions remain unresolved: - Submission of the unresolved disputes or controversies to a three-member Board of Arbitrators panel for resolution. - Each Party will appoint one arbitrator to the panel. A third arbitrator will be selected based on agreement by the Parties, or if the Parties cannot agree, either party may request the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to provide a list of seven qualified arbitrators. If the Parties cannot agree to one of the seven persons, the Parties will alternately strike names from the list until one name remains. The third arbitrator will serve as the Chairperson of the Board of Arbitrators. Alternatively, the Parties may waive the appointment of party - appointed arbitrators and proceed with a single arbitrator agreed to by the Parties. - Proceedings to be conducted in conformance with, subject to, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. - The Board of Arbitrators may exercise its discretion to meet privately with the Parties to mediate issues in dispute prior to arbitration. - The Board of Arbitrators shall hold hearings, receive evidence from the parties, allow for public input and cause a transcript of the proceedings to be prepared. - If no agreement is reached prior to the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, each Party is directed to submit a final offer of settlement on each remaining issue in dispute. - The Board of Arbitrators, by majority vote, selects which final offer to impose for each issue based on specified criteria. - The Board of Arbitrators provides its decision to the Parties. The decision will not be disclosed publicly at that time, and the Parties have 30 days to meet privately to resolve their differences. Any agreements reached by the Parties during that period are incorporated into the Board of Arbitrators' final decision. After 30 days, unless extended by mutual agreement, the decision becomes public, final, and is binding on the Parties. No further action by the County Board of Supervisors or by the electorate to confirm or approve the decision is permitted or required. - Require the Parties to equally share the cost of arbitration. OPTIONAL YES/NO QUESTION SUMMARY: A "YES" vote is a vote to amend the Charter of the County of Los Angeles to establish a binding arbitration process for resolving disputes between the County and certain labor organizations representing County employees including firefighters, deputy sheriffs, sworn law enforcement supervisors and managers, lifeguards, and civilian employees working for the Fire Department, Sheriff Department, and the Department of the Medical Examiner, among other represented County employees. A "NO" vote is a vote to not amend the Charter of the County of Los Angeles, which means there will be no binding arbitration process established for resolving disputes between the County and certain labor organizations representing County employees, and that the labor negotiation process between the County and those labor organizations will remain unchanged.

Source: Los Angeles County sample ballot data
Explainer · League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County · 7 min“Los Angeles County Measure A: Pros & Cons: LWV LA County, November 3, 2026 Election.” · hosted by League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County · YouTube
Official source
COUNTY MEASURE E
COUNTY MEASURE E

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

PROPOSED COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ETHICS COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT BUDGET ALLOCATION CHARTER AMENDMENT. Shall the measure amending the Los Angeles County Charter to provide greater independence and structure for the County of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, Office of Ethics Compliance, and Ethics Compliance Officer, including appointment processes, qualifications, term, duties and responsibilities, and to continue uninterrupted the County's commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration, as specified in the charter amendment ordinance, be adopted? Supporters: League of Women Voters of LA County; CA Clean Money; Supervisor Lindsey Horvath; CA Common Cause; AAPI Equity Alliance Opponents: None submitted.

Medium stakesNo dollar figure in the official summary · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Local vote: fewer voters, so yours counts for more

Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Would amend the County Charter to give the county Ethics Commission, Office of Ethics Compliance and Ethics Compliance Officer more independence and structure (appointments, qualifications, terms, duties), and continue the county's commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration. Majority vote.

From the county's official voter information

By Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel Measure E (Measure) is a proposed amendment to the Charter of the County of Los Angeles (Charter) placed on the ballot by ordinance and resolution of the County of Los Angeles (County) Board of Supervisors. If approved by a majority of voters voting on the Measure, this Measure would: - Amend Article III-D of the Charter, by repealing Sections 11.68 and 11.70 and adding Sections 11.67.00, 11.67.50, 11.68.00, 11.68.50, 11.69.00, 11.69.50, and 11.70.00, to provide greater independence and structure for the County Ethics Commission (Commission) and the Office of Ethics Compliance, including: - Establishing requirements and procedures for appointment, qualifications, and terms of Commissioners serving on the Commission; - Restricting Commissioners and the Ethics Compliance Officer from engaging in certain activities during and for a period of time after their tenure, unless prohibited or preempted by law; - Providing procedures for removal of Commissioners and filling of vacancies on the Commission; - Establishing meeting, quorum, compensation, and expense reimbursement requirements for the Commission and its members; - Providing for the appointment of the Ethics Compliance Officer who shall serve as the chief executive of the Office of Ethics Compliance, and the authority of the Ethics Compliance Officer; - Providing the duties, responsibilities, scope of investigative and enforcement authority, and enforcement procedures of the Commission and the Office of Ethics Compliance; - Authorizing the Commission to adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations relevant to the Commission's purpose and authority; and - Establishing annual funding requirements for the Commission and the Office of Ethics Compliance that provide at least $14.3 million dollars for the Commission's and Office of Ethics Compliance's annual operating budget starting with the 2027-2028 fiscal year, with annual increases by the greater of either (1) the percentage change in the cost of living in the Los Angeles area or (2) the percentage change in California per capita personal income. However, increases to the annual operating budget are not required if four-fifths (seven-ninths after January 1, 2032) of the Board of Supervisors finds that exigent circumstances exist such that an increase should not be made. - Renumber Article III, Section 11, Subsection (8) of the Charter, to Article XII, Section 51-1/4 and amend the Section to address the County's new governance structure by: - Requiring both the County Board of Supervisors and the County Executive to continue to allocate ten percent (10%) of the County's locally generated unrestricted revenues for direct community investment and alternatives to incarceration; and - Providing that the aforementioned allocation is not subject to veto by the County Executive. OPTIONAL YES/NO QUESTION SUMMARY: A "YES" vote is a vote to amend the Charter of the County of Los Angeles to provide greater independence and structure for the County of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, Office of Ethics Compliance, and Ethics Compliance Officer, including appointment processes, qualifications, terms, duties and responsibilities; and to require both the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the County Executive to continue the County's budgetary commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration when the County Executive assumes office starting in 2028. A "NO" vote is a vote to not amend the Charter of the County of Los Angeles which means the structure and independence of the County of Los Angeles Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance remains as currently provided in the County Charter; and the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors and County Executive will not be required to continue the County's budgetary commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration when the County Executive assumes office starting in 2028.

Source: Los Angeles County sample ballot data
Explainer · League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County · 9 min“Los Angeles County Measure E: Pros & Cons: LWV LA County, November 3, 2026 Election.” · hosted by League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 1
STATE MEASURE 1

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond. Supporters: US Vets; CA Federation of Teachers; Self-Help for the Elderly; Habitat for Humanity CA; CA Alliance of Child & Family Services Opponents: None submitted.

Medium stakesOfficial estimate: $500–600 million a year · Published guides disagree

“Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance.

Put on the ballot by the Legislature

A YES vote means

The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.

A NO vote means

The state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.

Fiscal impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“Proposition 1: Borrow $11.25 billion for housing” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 2
STATE MEASURE 2

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

INCREASES STATE'S RAINY DAY FUND. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Increases California's Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns. Fiscal Impact: State budget reserves would be higher. Supporters: CA Professional Firefighters; LA Chamber of Commerce; Gavin Newsom; Xavier Becerra; Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel Opponents: None submitted.

Medium stakesNo dollar figure in the official summary · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Increases California's Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns.

Put on the ballot by the Legislature

A YES vote means

Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. As a result, state budget reserves would be higher. The state also would be required to make extra debt payments for longer.

A NO vote means

Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.

Fiscal impact: State budget reserves would be higher.

Explainer · CalMatters · 1 min“Prop 2 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 38
STATE MEASURE 38

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue. Supporters: Michael J. Fox Foundation; Alzheimer's Los Angeles; Kidney Cancer Assoc; American Nurses Assoc/CA Opponents: Robert M Kaplan Ph.D.

Medium stakesOfficial estimate: $500–600 million a year · Published guides disagree

“Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.

A NO vote means

The state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.

Fiscal impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“Prop 38 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 41
STATE MEASURE 41

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Fiscal Impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers. Supporters: CA Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPAs); CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; California Taxpayers Association (CalTax) Opponents: US Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

Medium stakesNo dollar figure in the official summary · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

When special taxes are proposed by voter initiatives, the California State Auditor would review programs funded by the tax before the initiative appears on the ballot. The California State Auditor also would regularly review programs funded by special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature. In addition, the state might not be able to exclude any new special tax spending from its spending limit.

A NO vote means

The California State Auditor’s responsibility to review government programs would not change. The state spending limit requirements would not change.

Fiscal impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“CA billionaire tax explained: Propositions 40, 41 and 42” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 42
STATE MEASURE 42

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer's past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future. Supporters: CA Professional Firefighters; State Building & Construction Trades Council of CA; AMVETS Department of CA Opponents: US Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

Medium stakesNo dollar figure in the official summary · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

A NO vote means

The state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

Fiscal impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“CA billionaire tax explained: Propositions 40, 41 and 42” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 43
STATE MEASURE 43

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

LIMITS VOTERS' ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Limits voters' ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes. Supporters: California Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Opponents: California Professional Firefighters; California Federation of Teachers; Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA

Medium stakesNo dollar figure in the official summary · Changes a constitution or charter, so it’s hard to undo · Published guides disagree

Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027.

Put on the ballot by the Legislature

A YES vote means

Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.

A NO vote means

Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.

Fiscal impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.

Explainer · CalMatters · 1 min“Prop 43 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 45
STATE MEASURE 45

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars-potentially exceeding $100 million-annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects. Supporters: California Children's Hospital Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing Opponents: Coalition for Clean Air; CA Environmental Voters; Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA; National Wildlife Federation

Medium stakesOfficial estimate: High tens of millions a year, possibly over $100 million · Published guides disagree

“high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

Certain public and private projects would be eligible for new project review and court challenge procedures. For example, new procedures would tighten time limits for environmental review and reduce the scope of what courts can consider when reviewing legal challenges.

A NO vote means

Public and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures.

Fiscal impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.

Watch: 7 videos, shortest first1 of 7
Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“Prop. 45 Explained: CEQA on the 2026 ballot” · YouTube
Official source
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION Member of the City Council, 5th District
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
Member of the City Council, 5th District

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of five council members who set Montebello's overall policies and direction; a city manager runs day-to-day operations. Members serve four-year terms, pick one of themselves as mayor each year, and appoint residents to city commissions.

Voter Guider summary of City of Montebello, Elected Officials (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“18 months ago, on January 29th, 2025, I was appointed to represent District 5 in South Montebello.” · their statement
“Montebello is my community.” · their statement
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION Member of the City Council, 3rd District
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
Member of the City Council, 3rd District

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of five council members who set Montebello's overall policies and direction; a city manager runs day-to-day operations. Members serve four-year terms, pick one of themselves as mayor each year, and appoint residents to city commissions.

Voter Guider summary of City of Montebello, Elected Officials (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“As a local business owner on Whittier Boulevard, nonprofit technical consultant, and proud neighbor, I want to build a Montebello where people can stay, invest, and thrive for generations.” · their statement
“I am Marie Ledezma, and I am one of you.” · their statement
“My name is Ana Torres, and Montebello has been my home for over 30 years.” · their statement
CITY OF MONTEBELLO SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION Member of the City Council, 4th District (Unexpired term ending November 7, 2028)
CITY OF MONTEBELLO SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
Member of the City Council, 4th District (Unexpired term ending November 7, 2028)

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of five council members who set Montebello's overall policies and direction; a city manager runs day-to-day operations. Members serve four-year terms, pick one of themselves as mayor each year, and appoint residents to city commissions.

Voter Guider summary of City of Montebello, Elected Officials (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“Serving as your appointed District 4 Councilmember has been the greatest honor of my life.” · their statement
“My name is Rafael Gutierrez, and for over 45 years, Montebello has been my home.” · their statement
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION Member of the City Council, 1st District
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
Member of the City Council, 1st District

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of five council members who set Montebello's overall policies and direction; a city manager runs day-to-day operations. Members serve four-year terms, pick one of themselves as mayor each year, and appoint residents to city commissions.

Voter Guider summary of City of Montebello, Elected Officials (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“My name is Shazia Hoq, and I am a businesswoman, community leader, and candidate for Montebello City Council District 1.” · their statement
“Montebello has been my home my entire life.” · their statement
“It has been the honor of my life to serve as your Mayor and District 1 Councilmember, representing the community where my husband and I have raised our two children for over 35 years.” · their statement
MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Governing Board Member, Trustee Area No. 2
MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Governing Board Member, Trustee Area No. 2

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

A member of the board that governs Montebello Unified. The board sets the district's long-term direction, answers to the community for its schools' education and finances, and alone hires the superintendent who runs the district.

Voter Guider summary of California State Auditor, Report 2017-104 on Montebello Unified (2017), Introduction (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“Every parent, no matter their circumstances, wants the same thing: a safe school, great teachers, and every opportunity for their child to succeed.” · their statement
“Lizbeth Renova is an MHS graduate and a long-time MUSD resident.” · their statement
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 2
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 2

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of seven trustees who govern the Los Angeles Community College District. Trustees are elected by voters across the whole district (not one area) for four-year terms; three or four seats are up every two years.

Voter Guider summary of Los Angeles Community College District, BuildLACCD: Leadership (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“Adriana Cabrera describes herself as an educator, community organizer and first-generation college graduate raised in South Central Los Angeles.” · LAist
“Kristina Irwin describes herself as a wife, a working mother of three, an immigrant and “a community advocate who stepped into the political arena with grassroots determination.”” · LAist
“Steven Veres has been an LACCD trustee since 2011.” · LAist

Where they stand, in their sources' words

No sourced position found for ROBERT PAYNE, ROY PAYAN, KRISTINA IRWIN, ADRIANA CABRERA.

Everyone on Student housing at community colleges →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 4
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 4

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of seven trustees who govern the Los Angeles Community College District. Trustees are elected by voters across the whole district (not one area) for four-year terms; three or four seats are up every two years.

Voter Guider summary of Los Angeles Community College District, BuildLACCD: Leadership (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“Nancy Pearlman describes herself as an educator teaching anthropology, social studies and broadcasting at different levels, including middle school and community college.” · LAist
“Elaine Alaniz describes herself as a community college graduate whose career has crossed healthcare, workforce development, disaster recovery, public administration, communications and film production.” · LAist
“Adam Bruno is a licensed marriage and family therapist in California and Nevada and has worked in the mental health space since 2006.” · LAist

Where they stand, in their sources' words

No sourced position found for DARRYN HARRIS, ELAINE ALANIZ, ISIDRO J. ARMENTA, JASON R. AULA, PRISCILLA UMANA, ADAM BRUNO.

Everyone on Student housing at community colleges →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 6
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 6

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of seven trustees who govern the Los Angeles Community College District. Trustees are elected by voters across the whole district (not one area) for four-year terms; three or four seats are up every two years.

Voter Guider summary of Los Angeles Community College District, BuildLACCD: Leadership (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“Randall Winston is Los Angeles’ deputy mayor for infrastructure and climate resilience.” · LAist
“Tonia Arey describes herself as a longtime Los Angeles County resident who began her higher-education journey at a California community college.” · LAist
Video voters' guide statement · Gabriel Buelna · 1 min · YouTube
“It has been my honor to serve as your Los Angeles Community College District Trustee.” · their statement

Where they stand, in their sources' words

No sourced position found for ROBERTO DAVID LACARRA.

Everyone on Student housing at community colleges →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION City Treasurer
CITY OF MONTEBELLO GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
City Treasurer

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

“It has been my honor and privilege to serve as your Montebello City Treasurer, and I respectfully ask for your support for re-election.” · their statement
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, 38th District
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, 38th District

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

Your member of the U.S. House of Representatives: one of up to 435 who write and pass federal laws, elected every two years to represent your congressional district.

Voter Guider summary of U.S. House of Representatives, The House Explained (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • HILDA SOLIS47.6%
  • PEDRO ANTONIO CASAS35.8%
  • Everyone else16.5%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Interview · OC Talk Radio · 2 min · YouTube
“The working people of Southern California deserve a strong advocate in Congress.” · their statement

Also:

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Member, Board of Directors, Division 4
WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Member, Board of Directors, Division 4

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

A director of the water district that manages the groundwater basins under southern Los Angeles County, which supply about four million people in 43 cities. Voters created it in 1959 to stop over-pumping. Its board sets the district's replenishment charge.

Voter Guider summary of Water Replenishment District of Southern California, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 2022 (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →
“As a Water Policy Analyst and Southeast Los Angeles resident, I am running for the Water Replenishment District to bring new, accountable leadership to our communities.” · their statement
“In 2022, the voters honored me by electing me as their public servant and Director of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, Division 4.” · their statement
SHERIFF
SHERIFF

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

Runs the Sheriff's Department, the county's chief law enforcement agency. It polices most of the county's unincorporated areas and 42 cities that contract with it, guards courtrooms, and runs the county jails, which hold about 13,000 people in seven facilities.

Voter Guider summary of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff's Department budget summary (2025) (retrieved 2026-10-28)

Official wording and questions to ask →
Interview · KTLA 5 · 12 min · YouTube
“Alex Villanueva was L.A. County sheriff from 2018 to 2022, when Luna defeated him.” · LAist
“Robert Luna was elected in 2022 after serving as chief of police in Long Beach for seven years.” · LAist

Where they stand, in their sources' words

Everyone on Sheriff's deputies clearing encampments →

Endorsements as listed on each campaign's website; some campaigns don't publish a list we can read.

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 64
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Office No. 64

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

A trial judge on the county's Superior Court, where most California cases start: criminal and civil cases, plus family, probate, juvenile and traffic cases. The judge (sometimes with a jury) hears the evidence and decides by applying the law.

Voter Guider summary of Judicial Branch of California, California Judicial System (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →
Interview · Talking Downey · 1 min · YouTube
Well Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.

Also:

Candidate forum · csuDHTV · 1 min · YouTube
Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 65
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Office No. 65

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

A trial judge on the county's Superior Court, where most California cases start: criminal and civil cases, plus family, probate, juvenile and traffic cases. The judge (sometimes with a jury) hears the evidence and decides by applying the law.

Voter Guider summary of Judicial Branch of California, California Judicial System (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →
Interview · San Fernando Valley Bar Association · 19 min · YouTube
Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
Candidate forum · csuDHTV · 1 min · YouTube
Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.

Also:

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 87
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Office No. 87

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

A trial judge on the county's Superior Court, where most California cases start: criminal and civil cases, plus family, probate, juvenile and traffic cases. The judge (sometimes with a jury) hears the evidence and decides by applying the law.

Voter Guider summary of Judicial Branch of California, California Judicial System (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →
Candidate forum · csuDHTV · 1 min · YouTube
Well Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
Candidate forum · csuDHTV · 1 min · YouTube
Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 131
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Office No. 131

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

A trial judge on the county's Superior Court, where most California cases start: criminal and civil cases, plus family, probate, juvenile and traffic cases. The judge (sometimes with a jury) hears the evidence and decides by applying the law.

Voter Guider summary of Judicial Branch of California, California Judicial System (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →
Candidate forum · csuDHTV · 1 min · YouTube
Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
Candidate forum · csuDHTV · 2 min · YouTube
Qualified · Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
STATE MEASURE 4
STATE MEASURE 4

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs. Supporters: League of Women Voters of CA; California Nurses Association; Mental Health Advocacy; Social Security Works; Consumer Watchdog Opponents: California Taxpayers Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; Family Business Assn of California; United Latinos Action

Lower stakesOfficial estimate: A few hundred thousand dollars a year · Published guides disagree

“a few hundred thousand dollars each year” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.

Put on the ballot by the Legislature

A YES vote means

State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them.

A NO vote means

State and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.

Fiscal impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.

Explainer · CalMatters · 1 min“Prop 4 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 37
STATE MEASURE 37

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

CREATES LOAN PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE-INCOME BUYERS OF QUALIFIED NEW HOMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3% down. Bonds repaid by mortgage payments, not State. Fiscal Impact: No direct state or local costs. Supporters: United Nurses Associations of California; California Conference of Carpenters; California State Treasurer Fiona Ma Opponents: None submitted.

Lower stakesNo dollar figure in the official summary · Published guides disagree

Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3% down. Bonds repaid by mortgage payments, not State.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

The state would create a new homebuying assistance program. The state could sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund the program. Bonds would be paid back by homeowners’ payments on their home loans.

A NO vote means

The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.

Fiscal impact: No direct state or local costs.

Explainer · CalMatters · 2 min“Prop 37 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE MEASURE 44
STATE MEASURE 44

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

REQUIRES COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS SPEND 90% OF REVENUE ON PROGRAM SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on "program services" advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees. Supporters: None submitted Opponents: American Academy of Pediatrics CA; CA School Nurses Org; CA Academy of Family Physicians; CA Medical Assoc

Lower stakesOfficial estimate: Low tens of millions a year

“low tens of millions of dollars per year” Official source How this is worked out. Our rule, not a recommendation; it can't say what matters to you.

Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services.

Put on the ballot by petition signatures

A YES vote means

Certain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue each year on providing health care services.

A NO vote means

The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.

Fiscal impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.

Explainer · CalMatters · 1 min“Prop 44 explained l California 2026 election” · YouTube
Official source
STATE SENATOR, 30th District
STATE SENATOR, 30th District

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

One of 40 members of the State Senate, the other house of California's Legislature, elected for four-year terms. Senators write bills, often from ideas people bring them, and vote on bills and on the state budget; with the Assembly they can override a governor's veto by a two-thirds vote.

Voter Guider summary of California State Senate, Citizens' Guide: Legislative Process (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • BOB J. ARCHULETA65.1%
  • ARACELI MARTINEZ34.9%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

“Senator Bob Archuleta is a former Obama Presidential Appointee to the United States West Point Military Academy, an Army combat veteran and former paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, who also served with the Montebello Police Department, and has valuable local governmental experience as the former Mayor and councilmember for the City of Pico Rivera.” · their statement
Interview · Talking Downey · 2 min · YouTube

Also:

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, 54th District
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, 54th District

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

A member of the Assembly, one of the two houses of California's Legislature. Members write bills, often from ideas people bring them, and vote on bills and on the state budget; with the Senate they can override a governor's veto by a two-thirds vote. Assembly terms are two years.

Voter Guider summary of California State Senate, Citizens' Guide: Legislative Process (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • MARK GONZALEZ99.7%
  • ALEXANDRA BRISENO0.3%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

“California families are working harder and paying more for nearly everything—from housing, groceries, gas, utilities, and healthcare to the cost of raising a family or operating a business.” · their statement
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

Runs California's state government. Signs or vetoes the bills the Legislature passes, writes the state budget proposal each year, appoints judges, and directs the state's response to emergencies.

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

Watch them together

Debate · NBCLA · 3 min · YouTube

How the June 2 primary went

  • Xavier Becerra28%
  • Steve Hilton24.6%
  • Everyone else47.4%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Video voters' guide statement · Xavier Becerra for Governor · 1 min · YouTube
“Becerra represented Los Angeles in Congress for more than two decades before being appointed California’s attorney general in 2017.” · LAist

Also:

Interview · KCRA 3 · 43 min · YouTube
“Hilton, who is British American, was senior adviser for former conservative Prime Minister David Cameron from 2010 to 2012 before moving to California, where he co-founded a political crowdfunding platform in Silicon Valley.” · LAist

Where they stand, in their sources' words

  • Steve Hilton: “Hilton wants to roll back California’s climate rules that mandate a transition to clean energy and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in favor of more consumer-friendly policies.” CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide: Governor
  • Xavier Becerra: “Becerra says he supports the state’s clean energy transition goals but is open to revising them if they make gas and energy unaffordable, particularly Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ban on selling new gas cars by 2035.” CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide: Governor

Everyone on Clean-energy mandates →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

Takes over if the governor can't serve, and presides over the State Senate, where they can cast a tie-breaking vote.

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Fiona Ma19.1%
  • Gloria Romero17.8%
  • Everyone else63.1%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Video voters' guide statement · CA Lieutenant Governor Candidate Fiona Ma, CPA · 1 min · YouTube
“California is at a crossroads.” · their statement

Also:

Video voters' guide statement · Gloria Romero · 2 min · YouTube
“California needs a real choice.” · their statement

Also:

Where they stand, in their sources' words

No sourced position found for Fiona Ma.

Everyone on Voter ID →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
SECRETARY OF STATE
SECRETARY OF STATE

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

Runs statewide elections, makes campaign and lobbying money public, and registers businesses and trademarks.

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Shirley N. Weber58.7%
  • Donald P. (Don) Wagner36.7%
  • Everyone else4.6%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Interview · KCRA 3 · 14 min · YouTube
“I will never give up on protecting your voting rights.” · their statement
Interview · KCRA 3 · 16 min · YouTube
“As California's Chief Elections Officer, I will ensure every eligible voter's right to participate in our democracy, every legitimate vote is counted, and every Californian can trust the result, no matter who wins.” · their statement

Where they stand, in their sources' words

No sourced position found for Shirley N. Weber.

Everyone on Voter ID →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
CONTROLLER
CONTROLLER

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

The state's accountant. Keeps the books for all public money, runs the state payroll, handles unclaimed property, and audits state operations.

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Malia M. Cohen56.8%
  • Herb W Morgan37.5%
  • Everyone else5.7%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Video voters' guide statement · Herb Morgan for California Controller · 1 min · YouTube
“The State Controller does not set policy.” · their statement

Also:

Interview · KCRA 3 · 17 min · YouTube
“As California State Controller, Malia Cohen serves as the state's chief fiscal officer, safeguarding the finances of the world's fourth-largest economy.” · their statement
TREASURER
TREASURER

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

The state's banker. Invests state money and sells the state's bonds (how California borrows).

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Eleni Kounalakis36.7%
  • Jennifer Hawks24%
  • Everyone else39.3%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Video voters' guide statement · Eleni Kounalakis · 1 min · YouTube
“As the daughter of Greek immigrants, I grew up believing in the California dream.” · their statement
“I'm running for California State Treasurer because taxpayers deserve someone who will protect every dollar as if it were their own, and help bring much-needed change to Sacramento.” · their statement
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

The state's top lawyer. Runs the Department of Justice, represents California in court, and oversees law enforcement, including district attorneys and sheriffs.

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Rob Bonta56.6%
  • Michael E. Gates37.9%
  • Everyone else5.4%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Interview · KCRA 3 · 26 min · YouTube
“We need a new Attorney General.” · their statement
Interview · KCRA 3 · 29 min · YouTube
“Bonta was appointed attorney general in 2021 and was elected to a four-year term in 2022.” · LAist

Where they stand, in their sources' words

Everyone on Sanctuary law →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

Regulates the insurance companies that sell in California: licenses and examines them, enforces insurance laws and writes the rules under them, and answers people's complaints about insurers. Runs the state Department of Insurance.

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Jane Kim27.4%
  • Ben Allen19.4%
  • Everyone else53.2%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Video voters' guide statement · Ben Allen · 1 min · YouTube
“I'm running for Insurance Commissioner to reform our broken insurance system, lower costs, and protect consumers.” · their statement

Also:

Video voters' guide statement · Jane Kim · 1 min · YouTube
“The Insurance Commissioner should be working for you to lower prices, not working for the industry to increase profits.” · their statement

Also:

Where they stand, in their sources' words

Everyone on State disaster insurance →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
MEMBER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 3rd District
MEMBER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 3rd District

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

An elected state board that oversees California's property tax system, keeping it consistent from county to county, plus the state taxes on alcohol and on insurance companies.

Voter Guider summary of California State Board of Equalization, About BOE (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Mike Gipson27.9%
  • Samuel P. Sukaton18.2%
  • Everyone else53.9%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Video voters' guide statement · Mike Gipson · 1 min · YouTube
“Assemblymember Mike Gipson is a proven leader with decades of experience fighting for working Californians.” · their statement
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Vote For ONE

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

What does this office do?

California's top public-schools official. Runs the state Department of Education, carries out the State Board of Education's policies, and gives direction to local school districts.

Voter Guider summary of California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (June 2010, archived) (retrieved 2026-10-27)

Official wording and questions to ask →

How the June 2 primary went

  • Sonja Shaw22.6%
  • Richard Barrera20.3%
  • Everyone else57.1%

California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote (retrieved 2026-10-30). Who voted then, not a forecast: fewer people vote in primaries.

Interview · KCRA 3 · 18 min · YouTube
“Democrat Richard Barrera led the reform effort that transformed San Diego Unified from a district in crisis to one that is First in Reading and Math among the nation's largest urban districts.” · their statement
Video voters' guide statement · Sonja Shaw for CA State Superintendent · 1 min · YouTube
“California's public schools are failing our children.” · their statement

Also:

Where they stand, in their sources' words

Everyone on Transgender student protections →

Compare candidates side by side →Official source
For Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
For Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice of the Supreme Court JOSHUA GROBAN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

“Justice Groban began serving on the California Supreme Court in January 2019.” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Justice Groban began serving on the California Supreme Court in January 2019. Previously he was the Senior Advisor to Governor Jerry Brown and advised the governor on judicial appointments, legal policy and legislative issues.

Justice Groban advised the governor on the appointment of over 600 judges, or roughly one out of every three judges in the state. He received numerous awards from bar groups and other legal organizations for his work on judicial appointments. He also served on a local school board, participated in mentor programs for college and law students, and frequently lectured on judicial appointments. Justice Groban has also taught State Appellate Practice at the UCLA School of Law.

Justice Groban had previously been in private practice, where he specialized in complex civil litigation, with a focus on antitrust, internal investigations, and intellectual property.

Justice Groban grew up in San Diego, where he attended public schools. He received his bachelor’s degree with honors and distinction from Stanford University. He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he graduated cum laude. Following graduation, he clerked for the Honorable William C. Conner in the Southern District of New York.

From the Supreme Court of California: Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source

Shall Associate Justice of the Supreme Court KELLI M. EVANS be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

“Justice Kelli M. Evans serves as an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court.” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Justice Kelli M. Evans serves as an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. Before joining the Supreme Court, Justice Evans served as a Judge in the Alameda County Superior Court, presiding over both criminal and civil matters.

Prior to her appointment to the Alameda County bench, Justice Evans served as Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary in the Office of Governor Newsom, where she advised the Governor and executive agencies on a variety of legal, policy, and legislative issues.

Justice Evans previously served as Special Assistant to the Attorney General at the California Department of Justice with a focus in criminal justice, public safety, and civil rights law and policy.

Justice Evans has had a career of public service. Before joining the California Department of Justice, she served as Senior Director for the Administration of Justice at the California State Bar. Prior to joining the State Bar, she was Associate Director of the ACLU of Northern California and served as a Senior Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and as an Assistant Public Defender at the Sacramento County Public Defender’s Office. Justice Evans also has served as a member of federal court-appointed monitoring teams for the Oakland and Cleveland Police Departments.

Justice Evans has sat on the governing boards of a number of non-profit organizations and currently serves on the California Commission on Access to Justice. She has received numerous awards and recognition including the King Hall Distinguished Alumna Award, the Stanford Trailblazer Award, Judge of the Year Award, Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, State Bar President’s Award, and a Medal of Achievement from the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.

Justice Evans received her undergraduate degree from Stanford University and her law degree from the University of California at Davis, where she was the recipient of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award for Public Service.

From the Supreme Court of California: Justice Kelli M. Evans , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Presiding Justice RASHIDA A. ADAMS be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Presiding Justice · Division Three · Since 2023

“The Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission rated her “exceptionally well qualified” for both roles and the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed her in April 2023 as an Associate Justice, and in August 2026 as Presiding Justice.”

“In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Justice Adams to the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, as an Associate Justice.”

Read the full biography

Rashida Adams is the Presiding Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three.

Justice Adams began her legal career in Washington, D.C., where she worked at a law firm specializing in employment discrimination and whistleblower litigation. In 2005, she joined a boutique firm in Los Angeles, where she practiced civil litigation. In 2008, Justice Adams joined the Court of Appeal as a research attorney in the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight.

In 2017, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. appointed Justice Adams to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where she presided over juvenile dependency and criminal courtrooms. In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Justice Adams to the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, as an Associate Justice. In 2026, Governor Newsom appointed Justice Adams to serve as the Presiding Justice of Division Three. The Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission rated her “exceptionally well qualified” for both roles and the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed her in April 2023 as an Associate Justice, and in August 2026 as Presiding Justice.

Justice Adams graduated from Harvard University and received her law degree from Yale Law School.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Rashida A. Adams , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Presiding Justice HELEN ZUKIN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Presiding Justice, Division Four, Since 2023 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Presiding Justice · Division Four · Since 2023

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Justice Zukin has served on the Court of Appeal since July 2023. She served as an Associate Justice in Division Four for two years and began serving as the Presiding Justice of Division Four in 2025.

In 2018, Justice Zukin was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., where she served for five years. Justice Zukin presided over family law, general jurisdiction civil trials, and an unlimited independent civil calendar court. She also served as the West District Site Judge for the Beverly Hills Courthouse.

At the Los Angeles Superior Court, she worked to establish the court’s Judicial Mentor Program and was involved in the development of the California Judicial Mentor Program. Also at the Los Angeles Superior Court, she served as an active member of the Diversity & Inclusion, Access and Fairness, and Community Outreach Committees, as well as the Equity and Inclusion and Civil Engagement Initiative Working Groups, and the New Judicial Officers Judicial Education Seminar Subcommittee. She has lectured on a broad range of legal subjects to judges, attorneys, and law students.

Justice Zukin was born and raised in Los Angeles. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree with high academic honors from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and her law degree from Loyola Law School.

After law school, Justice Zukin began her legal career as an associate at Greene, O’Reilly, Agnew & Broillet. She moved to Simke, Chodos, Silberfeld & Anteau, where she became a partner. Justice Zukin joined Kiesel Law in 2006, becoming a partner in 2010. Throughout her career, Justice Zukin practiced plaintiffs complex civil litigation, including mass toxic torts, pharmaceutical and defective device actions, product liability, environmental property damage, and health care actions.

Justice Zukin’s community engagement includes serving as Chair of the State Bar of California’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) and Chair of its Review Committee. She has served as Chair of the LACBA Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC), Chair of the United States District Court, Central District of California Merit Selection Panel (MSP), and currently is Chair of the Los Angeles Judicial Selection Advisory Committee (LA JSAC). Justice Zukin is currently the Co-Chair of the Appellate Judicial Mentor Program. Justice Zukin is a member of the LACBA President’s Advisory Committee on Women in the Legal Profession (PAC-Women) and Co-Chair of the Promoting Women to Lead Subcommittee. Justice Zukin served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. She is a current member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers’ Board of Directors. Justice Zukin is a long-time member of the LACBA Litigation Section Executive Committee and served as its Chair in 2017. Justice Zukin has served as President of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

Justice Zukin is the recipient of LACBA’s 2025 Philip H. Lam Diversity Impact Award. She is also a recipient of the 2025 Armenian Bar Association Judges Night Award.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Helen Zukin , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Presiding Justice BRIAN M. HOFFSTADT be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Presiding Justice, Division Five, Since 2014 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Presiding Justice · Division Five · Since 2014

“He was appointed to Division Two by Governor Jerry Brown, and appointed as the Presiding Justice of Division Five by Governor Gavin Newsom.”

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Justice Hoffstadt has served on the Court of Appeal since August 2014. He served as an Associate Justice in Division Two for ten years, and began serving as the Presiding Justice of Division Five in 2024.

Justice Hoffstadt is a third-generation Southern Californian. He grew up in the eastern San Gabriel Valley, and attended public schools from kindergarten through law school. In 1992, he graduated from Cal Poly Pomona with a degree in business administration. Three years later, he graduated first in his class from UCLA School of Law.

Following law school, Justice Hoffstadt spent two years as a law clerk—first for the late Ninth Circuit Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and then for the late Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. For the next three years, he held legal policy posts at the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Policy Development, both in Washington, D.C.

Justice Hoffstadt returned to Los Angeles, and joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office as a criminal prosecutor. He spent the next six years investigating, charging, and trying criminal cases involving everything from white-collar fraud and international extortion to computer hacking and trademark infringement. He also served in the Criminal Appeals section, where he regularly briefed and argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

He then entered private practice as a partner at Jones Day. For the next three and a half years, he helped run the Issues & Appeals practice group in the law firm’s Los Angeles office. In that capacity, he briefed and argued complex trial court motions in civil cases, and briefed and argued civil appeals and writs before the California and federal appellate courts.

His judicial nominations have come from Governors of both major political parties. He was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then spent the next four years presiding over criminal and civil calendars, including 50 trials. He was appointed to Division Two by Governor Jerry Brown, and appointed as the Presiding Justice of Division Five by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Justice Hoffstadt has devoted many years to teaching. He has taught as an adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law, Loyola Law School, and The George Washington University Law School. He currently teaches Evidence at USC Gould School of Law. He has also taught judicial education courses all over the State of California on evidence, habeas corpus , domestic violence law, arbitration, civil jury instructions and verdicts, and criminal law. He has been a faculty member of the Judicial College since 2012. He chaired the 2017 Appellate Judges Education Institute Summit, and served on its Board of Directors and on the Executive Committee of the Appellate Judges Conference of the American Bar Association’s Judicial Division. He chaired the 2023 Appellate Justices Institute for California appellate judges.

Justice Hoffstadt has also written extensively. He has authored or co-authored two books: California Criminal Discovery (5th ed. 2015, 6th ed. 2020, 7th ed. forthcoming), and Evidence Law: Practice, Problems, and Policy (1st ed. 2023) (co-authored with Professor Laurie Levenson). He has written nearly 100 columns for the Daily Journal . He has published articles in the UCLA Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Texas Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, and Southern California Law Review. He was elected to the American Law Institute in 2018, and serves as an Advisor on the Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts: Defamation and Privacy.

Justice Hoffstadt is married to a public middle-school English teacher. They have two school-aged children.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Brian M. Hoffstadt , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Presiding Justice TARI L. CODY be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Presiding Justice · Division Six · Since 2023

“She was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom and received an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission.”

“Justice Cody was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments in 2023 as an Associate Justice to the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six and in 2026 as the Presiding Justice.”

Read the full biography

Justice Cody was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments in 2023 as an Associate Justice to the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six and in 2026 as the Presiding Justice. She was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom and received an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission.

Before joining the Court of Appeal, Justice Cody was appointed by Governor Gray Davis and served on the Ventura County Superior Court for 22 years. Justice Cody presided over family law, civil, criminal, appellate, probate and juvenile cases. She served as the Supervising Juvenile Judge for several years.

Justice Cody attended Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. After graduating, she began work as an associate with the Oxnard law firm of Nordman, Cormany, Hair & Compton later becoming a partner. In 1994, she joined the Westlake Village firm of Lemieux & O’Neill. Justice Cody served on the Ventura County Bar Association Board of Directors, and was a member and President of the Women Lawyers of Ventura County.

Justice Cody has devoted many years to developing and improving judicial education in the area of juvenile law. She has worked on judicial education committees, taught judicial education courses, and is currently the co-chair of the California Judicial Council’s Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee where she helps lead the committee in advising the Judicial Council on pending legislation and the creation and amendment of state court rules and forms affecting family and juvenile law. Justice Cody was recognized by the Ventura County Trial Lawyers as Judge of the Year in 2018 and received the Women Lawyers of Ventura County Legacy Award in 2022.

Justice Cody grew up in Southern California and attended the University of California, Irvine on an athletic scholarship. She graduated cum laude with degrees in economics and anthropology.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Tari L. Cody , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven
For Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Presiding Justice GONZALO C. MARTINEZ be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Presiding Justice, Division Seven, Since 2023 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Presiding Justice · Division Seven · Since 2023

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Justice Martinez is the Presiding Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Seven.

He served as an Associate Justice in Division Seven from 2023 until his confirmation as Presiding Justice in 2024 by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.

Justice Martinez previously served in the Governor’s Office as deputy judicial appointments secretary and also worked in legal affairs. He also served as a deputy solicitor general in the Office of the Solicitor General in the California Attorney General’s Office. He represented the State in significant civil and criminal matters in state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.

Justice Martinez was previously in private practice. He was a partner in the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group at Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, practicing before appellate and trial courts nationwide. He also worked at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP and Morrison & Foerster. As an attorney, he was certified as a specialist in Appellate Law by the State Bar of California. The Daily Journal recognized him as one of the “Top 100 Lawyers in California.”

He graduated from Harvard Law School and Harvard College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and literature, magna cum laude with highest honors. He earned a master’s degree in English from Stanford University. He clerked for the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney at the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, and for the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii at the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, both after several years of practice.

Martinez was born in Porterville, California, where he attended public schools. He was an appellate lawyer representative and a district court lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council. Martinez also served on the national board of governors for the Hispanic National Bar Association and in leadership roles in several local bar associations. He also coached high school mock trial teams and regularly speaks to law, college, and high school students.

He was elected to the American Law Institute in 2025.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Gonzalo C. Martinez , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice MICHELLE C. KIM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division One · Since 2024

“She was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments after receiving an "exceptionally well qualified" rating by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.”

“Kim was nominated to serve on the Second District Court of Appeal, Division One by Governor Gavin Newsom.”

Read the full biography

Justice Michelle C. Kim was nominated to serve on the Second District Court of Appeal, Division One by Governor Gavin Newsom. She was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments after receiving an "exceptionally well qualified" rating by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.

Justice Kim was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. She served as Assistant Supervising Judge in limited jurisdiction for the Criminal Division and Site Judge at several courthouses. She also presided over an unlimited civil calendar at the Spring Street Courthouse and an unlimited civil independent calendar court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, both in downtown Los Angeles.

Justice Kim received her B.A. in American Studies from Stanford University. She received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law.

After law school, Justice Kim served as a Deputy Public Defender and then Deputy Alternate Public Defender for Los Angeles County. She tried numerous felony jury trial cases to verdict as sole trial counsel representing indigent clients. Just prior to her appointment to the bench, she served as a departmental Head Deputy at the Alternate Public Defender’s Office.

Justice Kim is currently Vice Chair of the Los Angeles Judicial Selection Advisory Committee (LA JSAC) and is active in local bar associations and community organizations, including the Executive Committee of the LACBA Litigation Section.

Justice Kim was honored with the 2025 Judicial Service Award from the Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association (SCCLA) for her service to the bar and bench. Justice Kim is a Girl Scout Gold Awardee.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Michelle C. Kim , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source

Shall Associate Justice GREGORY J. WEINGART be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division One · Since 2022

“The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation rated him “exceptionally well qualified,” and the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed him in November 2022.”

“He was nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom to the Court of Appeal in October 2022.”

Read the full biography

Justice Gregory J. Weingart is an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One. He was nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom to the Court of Appeal in October 2022. The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation rated him “exceptionally well qualified,” and the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed him in November 2022.

Justice Weingart grew up in Arizona before attending Pomona College, where he graduated cum laude, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and won the senior prize in philosophy. He thereafter attended Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude and along with his teammates won the Ames Moot Court competition.

Upon graduation from law school, Justice Weingart clerked for the Honorable Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. After his clerkship, he was an associate at Munger Tolles & Olson LLP in Los Angeles from 1992 until 1995. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles from 1995 until 2004, where he specialized in the criminal prosecution of white collar and corporate crime and served as the chief of the Major Frauds section. As a federal prosecutor, Justice Weingart tried numerous cases to verdict and argued frequently in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He received many accolades for his service as a federal prosecutor, including twice winning the Department of Justice’s Director’s Award, and frequently taught other prosecutors at the Department’s National Advocacy Center.

After leaving government service, Justice Weingart was a partner at Munger Tolles & Olson for nearly 15 years, where he practiced in the areas of complex civil litigation, criminal defense, and internal investigations. While at Munger Tolles, he sat on the firm’s management committee and co-chaired its recruiting committee. He had an active pro bono practice, and served on the boards of non-profit organizations including Mental Health Advocacy Services and Bridges Academy, a school for children with learning differences. His involvement with bar associations included the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Litigation Section and Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee, and the American Bar Association’s White Collar Crime committee.

Justice Weingart was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. in December 2017. While a Superior Court judge, he presided primarily over family law matters, and was involved in various committees and court initiatives focused on victims of domestic violence. He also was actively involved in judicial and bar education events.

In his personal time, Justice Weingart enjoys spending time with his family and being outdoors. He has summited Denali, Mount Rainer, and peaks in the Ecuadorian Andes, rock climbed the East Face of Mount Whitney, and enjoys fly fishing, cycling and snow sports.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Gregory J. Weingart , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice ANNE RICHARDSON be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division Two · Since 2024

“She was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.”

Read the full biography

Justice Richardson has served on the Court of Appeal since November 2024. She was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.

She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court in October 2018 by Governor Brown. She served there for six years, first in family law and then in a civil courtroom. She actively served on many committees during her time there, including Ethics, Rules Committee, Domestic Violence, and Mentorship. She also served as a Justice pro tem for the Second Appellate District, Division Three.

Justice Richardson received her B.A. in Philosophy from Swarthmore College. She received her J.D. with Distinction from Stanford Law School, where she was an editor on the Stanford Law Review. She began her legal career by clerking for the late Mariana R. Pfaelzer, District Court Judge for the Central District of California. After her clerkship, she worked in private practice at Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick and its predecessors for 24 years. In that capacity, she litigated in state and federal court at both the trial level and in the courts of appeal. She then worked at Public Counsel for four years, where she directed the litigation of complex consumer cases before her appointment to the bench.

Justice Richardson has taught at Loyola Law School and the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Over the course of her career, Justice Richardson has taught at many legal conferences and in judicial education. She has written articles, book chapters, and book reviews. She is currently on the Executive Board of the California Judges Association and a member of the National Association of Women Judges, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the American Bar Association.

Justice Richardson has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including two California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) awards and an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell. An avid hiker, skier, and baker, she lives in Los Angeles with her husband and their rescue cat. She has one adult son.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Anne Richardson , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source

Shall Associate Justice STEVE GOORVITCH be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Associate Justice, Division Two, Since 2026 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Associate Justice · Division Two · Since 2026

“Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Justice Goorvitch to the Court of Appeal on February 19, 2026, and he was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on May 22, 2026.”

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Stephen Goorvitch is an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two.

Justice Goorvitch was born and raised in California and attended public schools K-12. Justice Goorvitch began his legal career in Washington, D.C., where he worked for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Enforcement. Justice Goorvitch then served as a law clerk to the Honorable Nora M. Manella of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and to the Honorable Rosemary S. Pooler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Justice Goorvitch worked in private practice at O’Melveny & Myers, LLP. Justice Goorvitch also served as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

On November 13, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. appointed Justice Goorvitch to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he presided over civil and criminal cases. Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Justice Goorvitch to the Court of Appeal on February 19, 2026, and he was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on May 22, 2026.

Justice Goorvitch graduated from the University of California at San Diego and received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Justice Goorvitch was a high school teacher between college and law school.

Justice Goorvitch is committed to animal rescue and has volunteered with his local humane society and a non-profit dog rescue organization.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Stephen Goorvitch , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice MARK HANASONO be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division Three · Since 2025

“In June 2025, the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Justice Hanasono, after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission.”

“In May 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom nominated him for the Court of Appeal.”

Read the full biography

Mark Hanasono is an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three. In May 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom nominated him for the Court of Appeal. In June 2025, the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Justice Hanasono, after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission.

Justice Hanasono received his Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the University of California, Berkeley, graduating summa cum laude with membership in the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society. He received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.

After graduating from law school, Justice Hanasono worked as a judicial law clerk in the District of Columbia Superior Court. From 2000 to 2004, he was an attorney for the Office of the Los Angeles County Public Defender, representing indigent adult and juvenile clients. In 2004, Justice Hanasono transferred to the Office of the Los Angeles County Alternate Public Defender, where he represented indigent clients in all felony cases, including capital murder. He also served as a Team Leader, supervising a team of felony attorneys assigned to the Central District.

In 2013, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. appointed Justice Hanasono to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he served in the Criminal Division for nearly twelve years. From 2018 to 2019, Justice Hanasono was the Assistant Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division, Limited Jurisdiction Courts. From 2020 to 2022, he was the Assistant Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division.

Justice Hanasono has taught as a lecturer in law at UCLA School of Law. He has served on the faculty of the Center for Judicial Education and Research and the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Judicial Education Seminars program and presented for the University of California’s Continuing Education of the Bar. Justice Hanasono has published articles in the UC Law Constitutional Law Quarterly, the State Bar’s Criminal Law Journal, and Berkeley Law’s Asian American Law Journal.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Mark K. Hanasono , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice NICHOLAS DAUM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division Four · Since 2026

“The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation rated him “exceptionally well qualified” for the position, its highest rating.”

“Daum was nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom to the Court of Appeal and was confirmed to the position in August, 2026 by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.”

Read the full biography

Justice Nicholas F. Daum was nominated by Governor Gavin Newsom to the Court of Appeal and was confirmed to the position in August, 2026 by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation rated him “exceptionally well qualified” for the position, its highest rating.

Before joining the Court of Appeal, Justice Daum served as a judge on the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. While on the Superior Court, Justice Daum presided over a criminal courtroom in the San Fernando Courthouse and then an independent calendar civil courtroom at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. He also served on the Superior Court’s executive committee and its rules committee.

Before beginning judicial service, Justice Daum spent nineteen years as a lawyer in private practice. He began his career as an associate at Susman Godfrey LLP and spent most of his attorney career at Kendall Brill and Kelly LLP, becoming a partner at that firm. As an attorney, his primary focus was complex, high-stakes litigation involving the media and entertainment industries. He also had an extensive appellate practice. As an attorney, Justice Daum worked on numerous pro bono matters, particularly matters involving voting rights.

Justice Daum was born and raised in Los Angeles. He attended Phillips Exeter Academy and then Cornell University, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude with honors as a college scholar. After college, he obtained a master's degree in Modern European History from the University of California at Berkeley. His law degree is from Yale Law School. While in law school, Justice Daum served as Notes Editor of the Yale Law Journal, and he taught legal writing as a Coker Fellow.

Justice Daum has taught at Loyola Law School, has served as the board president of the Western Justice Center, and previously held roles on the boards of the Immigrant Justice Clinic at Loyola Law School and Thad’s Episcopal Church. In his free time, he enjoys spending time with his wife and two children, reading histories and novels, attending concerts at the LA Philharmonic, and trying to improve his skills at tennis, skiing, and fly fishing.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Nicholas F. Daum , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source

Shall Associate Justice AUDRA M. MORI be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division Four · Since 2023

“Justice Mori was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.”

“In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom appointed her as an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four.”

Read the full biography

In 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. appointed Audra Mori to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where she presided over civil and family law cases. While there, she was appointed to serve as Chair of the Los Angeles Superior Court Judicial Mentor Program and was a member of numerous other court committees. In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom appointed her as an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four. Justice Mori was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments after receiving an “exceptionally well qualified” rating from the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.

Justice Mori was born and raised in Los Angeles County. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her law degree from Cornell Law School.

After law school, Justice Mori clerked for the Honorable Richard W. Goldberg of the United States Court of International Trade and worked at large law firms. For much of her career, she worked at Perkins Coie LLP, where she practiced intellectual property and commercial litigation and served in various leadership roles. She was the first woman of color to serve as Managing Partner of a firm office. She also served as Chair of the firm’s global Diversity Committee.

Justice Mori has held leadership positions in several bar associations. She was President of the Japanese American Bar Association and a Regional Governor of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. She serves on the Executive Committee of the Litigation Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and has co-chaired its Programs Committee.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Audra M. Mori , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source

Shall Associate Justice ARMEN TAMZARIAN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division Four · Since 2025

“After being nominated for the position by Governor Gavin Newsom, he was rated as “exceptionally well qualified” by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.”

Read the full biography

Armen Tamzarian was confirmed as an associate justice by the Commission on Judicial Appointments in June 2025. After being nominated for the position by Governor Gavin Newsom, he was rated as “exceptionally well qualified” by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.

Justice Tamzarian began his legal career as a research attorney at the Los Angeles Superior Court. He then worked at the law firm of Case, Knowlson, Jordan & Wright LLP, first as an associate and then as a partner. His practice focused on business, real estate, employment, and professional malpractice litigation, as well as constitutional law, in state and federal trial and appellate courts.

Justice Tamzarian also worked as a senior appellate court attorney and then as lead attorney for the Honorable Patti Kitching in the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 3.

In December 2013, he was appointed as a judge at the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Edmund G. Brown. There, he had family law, civil trial, and civil independent calendar assignments. He presided over 100 jury and non-jury trials.

Justice Tamzarian received a BBA from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, double majoring in business and finance and history. He received a JD from Southwestern Law School, where he received a full-tuition merit scholarship.

Justice Tamzarian is married and has one adult child.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Armen Tamzarian , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice KENNETH R. YEGAN be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Associate Justice, Division Six, Since 1990 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Associate Justice · Division Six · Since 1990

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

1969: B. A. degree University of California, Santa Barbara.

1972: J. D. degree University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.

1972: Admitted to California State Bar; United States District Court (Eastern); United States Court of Appeal (Ninth Circuit).

1972-1975: Deputy Public Defender, County of Ventura.

1975-1982: Judicial Attorney, Court of Appeal, State of California, Second Appellate District.

1976: Admitted to the Bar, United States Supreme Court.

1982-1983: Private practice, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County.

1983-1986: Judge, Municipal Court, County of Ventura.

1983: Graduate, California Judicial College.

1986: Assigned by Chairperson of Judicial Council to sit as pro tem Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six, Ventura.

1986-1990: Judge, Superior Court, County of Ventura.

1990-Present: Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six.

1991: Graduate, Institution of Judicial Administration, New York University School of Law.

ARTICLES WRITTEN:

Penal Code section 12022.5, Circa 1977 L.A. Bar Journal (March 1977).

Faretta - The California Experience, Vol. 53, No. 6, Cal. (1978) State Bar Journal.

Depublication, The Missing Determinate Sentence Law Opinions, L.A. Lawyer Magazine. (April 1982)

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Volunteer Ski Instructor, Disabled Sports Eastern Sierra 2003 to present

Wounded Warriors Ski Instructor, 2007 to present

Wounded Warrior Regimental Medal, 2012

California Judge's Assn., Judge of the Year Humanitarian Award, 2009

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Kenneth R. Yegan , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice NATALIE STONE be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Associate Justice, Division Seven, Since 2024 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Associate Justice · Division Seven · Since 2024

“After Governor Gavin Newsom nominated her for the position, the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed her in May 2024.”

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Justice Natalie P. Stone is an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven. After Governor Gavin Newsom nominated her for the position, the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed her in May 2024.

Justice Stone grew up in Charleston, South Carolina, before attending Duke University, from which she graduated cum laude. She attended UCLA School of Law. During law school, she was co-chair of El Centro Legal, the law school’s student-coordinated network of volunteer legal aid projects, including homeless youth, landlord-tenant, and disability rights clinics.

After law school, Justice Stone clerked for the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. She then joined Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in Los Angeles, where she practiced complex civil litigation for 10 years. She also spearheaded the creation of the Los Angeles Food from the Bar , an annual volunteer and fundraising drive benefiting the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank that has since raised over $8 million from legal organizations across Los Angeles.

Justice Stone served as an appellate court attorney to the Honorable Thomas Willhite of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four, for five years. During her tenure in that position, she chaired Los Angeles County’s Food from the Bar steering committee and each year led the Court of Appeal’s award-winning participation in the campaign.

Justice Stone was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. in July 2015. During her nine years as a superior court judge, she presided over juvenile dependency and criminal matters. She was actively involved in various court committees and presided over the Teen Court at Venice High School. She also taught judicial education to California judges statewide.

Justice Stone is a member of the California Judges Association Appellate Committee, which vets new legislation that may affect the California Courts of Appeal.

In her free time, Justice Stone enjoys gardening, traveling, and playing beach volleyball.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Natalie P. Stone , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight
For Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight

Vote YES or NO

Voter Guider extras · not on your ballot

Shall Associate Justice JOHN WILEY be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Associate Justice, Division Eight, Since 2018 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Associate Justice · Division Eight · Since 2018

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Equal justice under law is our national ideal. It is so important that, every day, judges do their best to make this dream come true for the people who bring their disputes to court for fair resolution under the rule of law.

John Wiley was born in Iowa. When he was 12, his family moved to California, where he attended public school from junior high through law school.

John was appointed to the Superior Court in 2002 and to the Court of Appeal in 2018. He clerked for Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge Frank Coffin of the First Circuit. John has published in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Duke Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Columbia Law Review, and American Economics Review. John was tenured at UCLA Law School, where he won UCLA’s Distinguished Teaching Award. John was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. He was a federal prosecutor. John has been happily married for more than 40 years, and he and his wife have two grown children.

In Yosemite, John climbed The Nose on El Capitan and the Northwest Face of Half Dome as a young guy. These days, though, he more often is climbing indoors at a gym in central Los Angeles.

John enjoys working with his hands, fixing old chairs and sawing up wood. Lately he has been making furniture for people who lost their homes in the Los Angeles fires.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: John Shepard Wiley Jr. , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source

Shall Associate Justice MATTHEW A. SCHERB be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Associate Justice, Division Eight, Since 2025 · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them.

Associate Justice · Division Eight · Since 2025

“Governor Gavin Newsom nominated Justice Scherb to this position on August 7, 2025, and the Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed that nomination on November 17, 2025.”

The biography doesn't mention a nominee rating.

Read the full biography

Matthew A. Scherb is an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight. Governor Gavin Newsom nominated Justice Scherb to this position on August 7, 2025, and the Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed that nomination on November 17, 2025.

Justice Scherb holds a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from Yale University and a Juris Doctor from Northwestern University School of Law.

Following law school, Justice Scherb clerked for the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. From 2005-2011, he practiced litigation at the San Francisco office of Winston & Strawn LLP, focusing on copyright and trademark matters. He then served, from 2011-2017, as a senior and lead appellate court attorney for Justice Kathleen M. Banke of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One. Justice Scherb then returned to practice, joining, from 2017-2021, the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney and its section of lawyers devoted to civil appeals and writs. During this time, Justice Scherb volunteered at Public Counsel’s Appellate Clinic for Self-Represented Litigants, which helps those in need navigate the appellate process at the Second District. For the five years before joining the Second District’s bench, Justice Scherb, from 2021-2025, served as a Chambers Attorney for the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins of the Supreme Court of California at his chambers in Los Angeles. Justice Scherb previously served as a member of the California Lawyers Association Committee on Appellate Courts and the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Appellate Courts Section Executive Committee.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Matthew Scherb , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source

Shall Associate Justice VICTOR G. VIRAMONTES be elected to the office for the term provided by law?

Nominee rating: “exceptionally well qualified” · the court's biography

How to decide: what the court says about this justice

We found no official evaluation of California justices for retention votes, so this is their court's own biography of them, which quotes the rating the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission gave them as a nominee.

Associate Justice · Division Eight · Since 2022

“He was rated “exceptionally well qualified” by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.”

“In October 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom nominated Justice Viramontes to the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight.”

Read the full biography

Victor Viramontes is an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight.

Justice Viramontes began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Carlos R. Moreno in the federal district court for the Central District of California in 1999. Thereafter, he was an associate at Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, where he practiced from 2000 to 2001. He joined the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) as a staff attorney in 2001 and worked there until 2005. Between 2005 and 2008, he served as a trial attorney at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and then as a senior trial attorney from 2008 to 2010. Justice Viramontes rejoined MALDEF as national senior counsel in 2010.

In November 2017, former Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. appointed Justice Viramontes to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In October 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom nominated Justice Viramontes to the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight. He was rated “exceptionally well qualified” by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. The Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed him in November 2022.

Justice Viramontes received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University and a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School.

From the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District: Victor Viramontes , retrieved 2026-10-27

Official source